ID: nht73-2.18

DATE: 04/24/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R.B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Flex-N-Gate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of April 17, 1973 to Mr. Schneider you ask whether the Federal lighting standard, No. 108, applies to you as a manufacturer of rear step-hitch bumpers for pick-up trucks. Since the bumper installation interferes with the original vehicle license plate mounting bracket, provision is made for relocating the license plate mounting bracket, provision is made for relocating the license plate in the bumper. You apparently do not yourself mount the bumper to the vehicle, as your letter indicates that they are sold as after market items "to purchasers of new trucks" and to two truck manufacturers "who install these items before the trucks are released to the dealers".

Under the circumstances you describe, Standard No. 108 would not apply to you. Compliance and certification of new vehicles is the responsibility of the truck manufacturers who install the bumpers, although you may have a contractual obligation with them to provide license plate lighting meeting Federal requirements. In the aftermarket, if the bumper is installed prior to delivery of the truck to the purchaser, the dealer making the installation is legally responsible for compliance with Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

April 17, 1973

Lawrence R. Schnieder Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Schnieder:

We manufacture rear step-hitch bumpers for pick-up trucks, and market them through dealers who sell them as add on accessories to purchasers of new trucks. We also are an O.E.M. supplier to Jeep Corporation and Toyota who install these items before the trucks are released to the dealers. As the bumper installation interferes with the original license light mounting bracket on the vehicle we make provisions for relocating the license plate onto the bumper (see attached brochure).

I would like to get your interpretation of Standard 108, i.e. whether it applies to us or not, if it does then the proper way of certifying that the license lights meet the federal requirements.

Sincerely,

SHAHID R. KHAN Engineer -- FLEX-N-GATE (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-2.19

DATE: 08/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In reference to your August 3, 1973, petition for rule making pertaining to Standard No. 213, we require additional information on your harness release mechanism prior to reaching any decision on this matter.

Specifically, we require data on the amount of force required to open your release mechanism under the following conditions:

1. When the harness system is preloaded with the child body block to 45 pounds (according to the existing procedure in Standard No. 213);

2. When the harness system is preloaded to 45 pounds with a three-year-old Sierra child dummy (by pulling on the arms and legs of the dummy); and

3. When the child seating system with an actual child occupant is suspended upside down and when the harness system is not unloaded (pulling only on the latch mechanism without releasing the load on the harness).

Your cooperation in furnishing us this data will aid in resolving this matter.

ID: nht73-2.2

DATE: 08/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1973, concerning the conformity of certain designs of type III seat belt assemblies with Standard No. 209.

The first feature which you describe is a restraint consisting of a waist band with a single shoulder strap. The shoulder strap is attached to the buckle in front and is looped around the waist band in back. Unless this restraint has more elements then you describe, we haver serious questions about its conformity with the requirements for type III seat belts under Standard 209. Section S4.1(c) provides that the assembly must restrain the upper torso without shifting the pelvic restraint into the abdominal region and that the upper torso restraint shall be designed to minimize its vertical forces on the shoulders and spine. It appears doubtful that the described assembly meets either of these requirements.

The second feature you described is a strap through the harness assembly that passes around the seat back and is anchored to the floor by means of the vehicle's seat belt assembly anchorage. Your question appears to be whether such a restraint is a seat back retainer as required by Section S4.1(h). The attachment you describe would not be a seat back retainer under Section S4.1(h).

The third feature described, a closed loop strap without floor attachment would also violate the requirements of S4.1(h), unless it is designed and labelled for use only in specific models having adequate seat back restraints, as specified in that paragraph.

The fourth feature is the ability of a harness to move freely up and down on the restraint strap. This feature is the ability of harness to move freely up and down on the restraint strap. This feature is allowable under Standard 209.

Yours truly,

ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORISE, INC.

June 18, 1973

Richard Dyson -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Type 3 Seat Belt Assemblies.

Dear Mr. Dyson:

We have recently been asked to perform tests on type III seat belt assemblies, the design of which has caused us some doubt as to their meeting some of the requirements of FMVSS 209. What we would like to know is whether or not the following design features are acceptable under the requirements for type III seat belt assemblies as outlined in FMVSS 209.

1. Upper torso restraint: Restraint consists of single strap starting at the midpoint of the pelvic band (strap around the waist). The anchor point is the buckle tongue hardware. The strap then passes over on shoulder of the child and is terminated in a loop through which the pelvic belt passes freely.

2. Seat Back Retainer: Strap passes through harness assembly around seat in a closed loop and is anchored to the vehicle by a narrow anchor plate using the same bolt as used to secure the seat belt assembly. This installation is performed by the purchaser.

3. Strap: The harness assembly is secured to the seat back by a closed loop strap. No seat back restraint provided.

4. Harness assembly: The harness assembly is secured by either the seat back retainer or strap and is free to move up or down on this section of webbing.

The specimens we have in for test are combinations of the above features and as such we would appreciate knowing what features are acceptable and which are not.

Should you require any additional information on this subject, in relation to the descriptions, please contact either Mr. H. D. Pomponio or myself.

Very truly yours,

C. F. Robb -- Manager, Automotive/Mechanical Division

ID: nht73-2.20

DATE: 12/22/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to our letter of August 20, 1973 (copy enclosed), requesting additional technical information on your harness release mechanism (the subject of your August 3, 1973, Petition for Rule Making).

Please inform us within ten days whether or not you intend to furnish us the information we requested in our letter, so that we may make a final decision on your Petition for Rule Making action.

ID: nht73-2.21

DATE: 04/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David Schmeltzer; NHTSA

TO: Arthur H. Davis

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter which we received April 5, 1973, which asks if you, as a dealer of tires, may register all new and retreaded tires sold to first purchasers on a single form and send that form to a tire registry service.

Under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (49 CFR Part 574) dealers selling cars to first purchasers must record the sale and forward the required information to the manufacturer or his designee. Therefore, you can only record all the tire sales from various manufacturers and retreaders on a registry service form if that registry service is the designee of all of the manufacturers and retreaders whose tires you sell.

For your information we have enclosed a copy of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation (Notice No. 5) and a copy of an interpretation of the regulation dealing with the question of manufacturers' designees (Notice No. 10).

Thank you for your interest in auto safety.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

Sir

RE: D.O.T Registration

I am in the wholesale tire business. It has come to my attention twice that a dealer may register all this not only mine but all this on one simple registration form. That being Axican Systems hire.

Can a dealers register all new turn' and all retracks on the form that Axican Systems he use, mail it to Axican and be legally within the bainclouir of the federally law.

Sincerely,

(Illegible Word) --

RFD 2 Box 174A.,(Illegible Word). Mc 04401

ID: nht73-2.22

DATE: 02/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your petition for reconsideration of 49 CFR 575.103 dated January 12, 1973, you enclosed a copy of "International Camper's Manual for Truck-Camper Leading(Illegible Word) and asked whether its data content and format complied with the requirements, and especially @ 575.6.

Section 576.6 allows a document provided with a vehicle to "contain more than one table", but it "must clearly and unconditionally indicate which of the tables applies to the vehicle with which it is provided". Although pages 8 and 9 of the Guide explain how to use the tables, and page 6 refers the owner to the "capacity plate" for the proper weight rating, there appears to be nothing within the booklet itself that indicates which of the 16 tables applies to "the vehicle with which it is provided".

Other issues raised in your petition will be considered in the agency's response which will be published shortly.

Sincerely,

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

MOTOR TRUCK DIVISION

January 12, 1973

Douglas W. Toms -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Reconsideration -- 49CFR 575.103, Truck Camper Loading, Docket No. 71-7; Notice 5

Dear Mr. Toms:

International Harvester Company (IH) respectfully files this petition requesting the Administrator to amend the new Consumer Information Regulation as published in the Federal Register p. 26607 on December 14, 1972.

On August 15, 1972 the NHTSA issued a new Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 126, Truck Camper Loading, with a mandatory effective date of January 1, 1973. On December 14, 1972 the NHTSA by issuance of 575.103 rescinded Standard No. 126 and enacted the new Consumer Information Requirements as a replacement for Standard No. 126.

IH is deeply concerned since it has put forth considerable time, effort and expense in developing and publishing information required to comply with the January 1, 1973 effective date of Standard No. 126. As a means of complying with Standard No. 126, production quantities of a 28-page IH Truck Camper Loading Guide (10 copies enclosed) were recently printed. We believe that this Camper Guide would be quite beneficial and effective in providing information to the consumer to assure proper selection of a compatible slide-in camper unit. In view of above, IH must support and favor the NHTSA's previous position of regulating requirements for truck camper loading information as a Motor Vehicle Safety Standard in preference to a Consumer Information Regulation.

It is apparent that revisions would have to be made to the above mentioned IH Camper Guide in order to comply with 575.103. We will not be able to implement these necessary revisions in time to meet the February 1, 1973 availability deadline as required by Docket No. 71-7, Notice 5. The amount of additional lead time needed by IH is, of course, dependent on the nature of the changes that would have to be made to the attached MVSS 126 Camper Guide to make it compliant with 575.103. Some of the obvious changes include certain references, definitions and effective dates that have been modified by NHTSA in the transition from MVSS 126 to 575.103.

There is one additional area in which some question exists. Heretofore IH has not been required to furnish consumer information under Part 575. We are therefore requesting an official interpretation from the NHTSA that the data content and format as presented in the attached IH Camper Guide - Part No. 1086777-R1 does in fact comply with 49 CFR Part 575. We are particularly concerned about Section 575.6.

As noted earlier IH will not be able to comply with the 3/1/73 effective date of 575.103 due to the time that would be required to revise and republish our Truck Camper Loading Guide. If the changes are of a minimal nature (i.e correction of references, definitions and dates) we will need approximately 60 days beyond the date that NHTSA responds to this Petition. If more extensive revisions are required, we anticipate that a minimum of six months lead time would be needed.

The following points will summarize the basic content of this Petition:

1. IH favors promulgation of subject requirements as Safety Standard No. 126 instead of a Consumer Information Regulation.

2. However, if NHTSA sees fit to implement as a Consumer Information Regulation IH is requesting a favorable interpretation that the basic content and format of the IH Camper Guide that has been developed to meet MVSS 126 would likewise satisfy the statutory requirements of 575.103. Consequently, if only minimal changes are required to the existing IH Camper Guide, the revised information can be made available within 60 days after the NHTSA response to this Petition is received by IH. If more substantive changes are required, it is estimated that approximately six months lead time will be required by IH.

IH would further point out that NHTSA's promulgation of 575.103 has, in fact, violated procedures outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act in that interested parties were not provided opportunity to comment upon providing the subject information under Part 575 Consumer Information prior to final enactment of 575.103. Therefore, should NHTSA decide not to grant any of the alternative modifications requested herein, we request that the subject regulation be reissued as a Notice of Proposed Rule Making as stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Act.

D. E. Schmidt -- Assistant Manager of Engineering

ID: nht73-2.23

DATE: 03/26/73

FROM: Francis Armstrong; Francis Armstrong; Office of Standards Enforcement

TO: File

TITLE: FMVSS Interpretation

TEXT:

March 26, 1973 Close-out of Investigatory File, CIR 584 N41-21RGa; CIR 584 Director, Office of Standards Enforcement File The Investigatory File, CIR 584, has been closed out inasmuch as the manufacturer utilitzed a driver test dummy during his certification tests. This alternate certification technique is permissible by FMVSS No. 204. A maximum rearward dynamic horizontal displacement of 5.1 inches was obtained on the standards enforcement Checker test vehicle, NHTSA No. 71518, during a 29.3 mph frontal barrier impact. This maximum displacement was only 0.1 inch greater than the maximum allowable and which occurred late (124 msec.) during the collision interval. The manufacturer's submitted data indicated that their test dummy impacted the steering control early (approximately 55 msec.) in the vehicle impact phase and thereby would restrict the steering control rearward displacement. It is therefore, concluded that the NHTSA vehicle would have met the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 204 if the alternate driver dummy technique had been utilized in the test. Francis Armstrong

ID: nht73-2.24

DATE: 05/02/73

FROM: JAMES E. WILSON -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- ATTORNEY, LEGAL DEPARTMENT NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NY0-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/30/73 FROM GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- NADA TO LAUREN SNYDER -- NHTSA; OBTAINED OCTOBER 17, 1973

TEXT: Dear Mr. Molovinsky:

This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1973, in which you asked whether it would be permissible for automobile dealers to modify vehicles as necessary for handicapped persons in such a manner that they might not conform to all the applicable motor vehicle safety standards.

Section 108(b) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (1), states that the prohibition against delivery of a nonconforming vehicle "shall not apply to the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle . . . after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." The question is when the "purchase" of a vehicle is completed so that a dealer or other person is free to modify it as he wishes. We have generally taken the position that the purchase is not completed until the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser. This of course raises the problem you have described in cases where the vehicle must be modified prior to delivery.

Our position, that the first purchase of a vehicle is not completed until the vehicle is actually delivered, is necessary, we believe, in the general situation to carry out the intent of Congress and maintain the effectiveness of the standards. The situation where a vehicle must be modified for the special needs of a handicapped person is distinguishable, however, from the general case in that the modification (1) is necessary for the buyer to use the vehicle, (2) takes the vehicle out of its

2 normal commercial configuration and thus identifies it to the particular buyer, and (3) is performed for purposes other than evasion of the requirements of the safety standards. In this limited case, therefore, we are willing to consider any violation a purely technical one that is justified by the public need, and will exercise our discretion not to take any enforcement action.

Sincerely,

ID: nht73-2.25

DATE: 03/15/73

FROM: B.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: WARREN M. HEATH -- DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

TITLE: N41-34

TEXT: Dear Mr. Heath:

This is in reply to your letter of February 28th to Mr. Dougins W. Toms, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, concerning the mounting of lamps and reflectors on mini-pickup trucks.

The December 8, 1972, letter from Commissioner M. Pudinski was placed in Docket 69-19; Motion No. 3. We inadvertently failed to knowledge this action to Mr. Pudinski.

The visibility requirements of lamps and reflectors in Standard No. 100 are predicated on the normal driving or closed tail gate position. Since the use of motor vehicles, including driving with tail gates down or[Illegible word] lids open or otherwise having the lights and reflectors obscurred by a particular load on the vehicle, is under the jurisdiction of the individual states, we do not anticipate rule making on this subject.

Sincerely,

ID: nht73-2.26

DATE: 02/26/73 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: LOUIS C. LUNDSTROM -- DIRECTOR, AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES STAFF GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

COPYEE: C.R. SHARP

TITLE: N40-30 [ZTV]

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lundstrom:

This is in reply to your request of February 1, 1973, for an interpretation of paragraph S5.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105a. You have asked if "a master cylinder with a dam at the 25 percent capacity level" would meet the requirements of the standard.

The paragraph in question requires a "reservoir compartment for each service brake subsystem serviced by the master cylinder" with the further requirement that "loss of fluid from one compartment shall not result in a complete loss of brake fluid from another compartment". In our view, a master cylinder with a dam at the 25 percent level would be compartmentalized within the meaning of S5.4.1.

Sincerely,